[solaris]

The US likes to call out other countries for not being tough enough with intellectual property rules, and it tosses countries like Russia, China, and even Israel onto "watch lists" and "priority watch lists" in an attempt to force changes.

But the US comes in for its share of IP-related criticism from other countries both small and large, too. When it happens, though, we're not nearly so quick to change our ways.

Full story here: IP hypocrisy: US likes WTO rulings only when it wins

[Nightfly]

Originally Posted by solaris

Full story here: IP hypocrisy: US likes WTO rulings only when it wins

They're all crazy according to this article.....

Charging a Garage for playing their music to loud and reaching
the public..so they should pay royalties........

[Dave C]

Originally Posted by Nightfly

They're all crazy according to this article.....

Charging a Garage for playing their music to loud and reaching
the public..so they should pay royalties........

I had a 'funny' phone call at work ~six months ago. Someone claiming to be from some sort of licence holding organisation (annoyingly can not remember their name) called asking whether we had any music playing devices at work (radio / stereo / mp3 player etc). When I told him I had all three he then said I needed to have a licence to play them. When I told him that sounded stupid he when on to clarify that if any member of the public could hear the music I would be breaking some sort of licensing law and could be fined xxx thousands of ££. I went on to tell that we never let the public on our site & he said that was irrelevant. He then went on to say that I could sign up then & there to some sort of license which would cost an organisation like ours ~£250 a year. Politely told him to sod-off and to send me some more info in the post. At the time I just put it down to someone trying to con some money out of us, but reading this post I am not so sure now. Still think he was just a con artist as he never posted anything to me, but you never know
Cheers,
Dave C

[squash54]

Originally Posted by Dave C

I had a 'funny' phone call at work ~six months ago. Someone claiming to be from some sort of licence holding organisation (annoyingly can not remember their name) called asking whether we had any music playing devices at work (radio / stereo / mp3 player etc). When I told him I had all three he then said I needed to have a licence to play them. When I told him that sounded stupid he when on to clarify that if any member of the public could hear the music I would be breaking some sort of licensing law and could be fined xxx thousands of ££. I went on to tell that we never let the public on our site & he said that was irrelevant. He then went on to say that I could sign up then & there to some sort of license which would cost an organisation like ours ~£250 a year. Politely told him to sod-off and to send me some more info in the post. At the time I just put it down to someone trying to con some money out of us, but reading this post I am not so sure now. Still think he was just a con artist as he never posted anything to me, but you never know
Cheers,
Dave C

Hi Dave,
I expect the situation in the UK is similar to Oz where you have to have a licence in any commercial situation where copyright music is broadcast "to the public". This includes music on hold by businesses.
Here is a link to info on the Oz situation: http://www.copyright.org.au/information/G020.pdf
Interestingly, this method of collecting money for the right to play music in this way has been advanced as a possible model to solve the p2p file sharing issue. That is, the artists form a collecting society which then offers file-sharers a licence in exchange for a reasonable regular payment (say $5 a month bundled with an internet account). They can then go on doing what they are going to do anyway but without the fear of lawsuits or having their internet connection blocked. The money collected gets divided among the artists based on the popularity of their music. In exchange, these music fans are free to DL whatever they like, using whatever softwear works best for them. The more file shareing, the more money goes to artists. The more file-sharing, the larger and deeper the music catalogue.

Eccles!! This time you have gone too far

[Starcat]

Originally Posted by Dave C

I had a 'funny' phone call at work ~six months ago. Someone claiming to be from some sort of licence holding organisation (annoyingly can not remember their name) called asking whether we had any music playing devices at work (radio / stereo / mp3 player etc). When I told him I had all three he then said I needed to have a licence to play them. When I told him that sounded stupid he when on to clarify that if any member of the public could hear the music I would be breaking some sort of licensing law and could be fined xxx thousands of ££. I went on to tell that we never let the public on our site & he said that was irrelevant. He then went on to say that I could sign up then & there to some sort of license which would cost an organisation like ours ~£250 a year. Politely told him to sod-off and to send me some more info in the post. At the time I just put it down to someone trying to con some money out of us, but reading this post I am not so sure now. Still think he was just a con artist as he never posted anything to me, but you never know
Cheers,
Dave C

We always used to have a radio playing where I work up until last summer. No one ever complained about it and it made the time pass quicker (depending on what was being played, of course!)

Then out of the blue we were informed that no music would be allowed anymore as a licence was needed for it. And that`s how things have stayed - no licence fee paid, no music.

I believe the organisation concerned that accepts payments for this situation is the PRS (Performing Rights Society) but I am not certain of that.

So the phone call you received, Dave, could have been genuine but it seems a strange way for a legitimate organisation to conduct it`s business - by cold calling and demanding payments

[Starcat]

Originally Posted by squash54

Hi Dave,
I expect the situation in the UK is similar to Oz where you have to have a licence in any commercial situation where copyright music is broadcast "to the public". This includes music on hold by businesses.
Here is a link to info on the Oz situation: http://www.copyright.org.au/information/G020.pdf
Interestingly, this method of collecting money for the right to play music in this way has been advanced as a possible model to solve the p2p file sharing issue. That is, the artists form a collecting society which then offers file-sharers a licence in exchange for a reasonable regular payment (say $5 a month bundled with an internet account). They can then go on doing what they are going to do anyway but without the fear of lawsuits or having their internet connection blocked. The money collected gets divided among the artists based on the popularity of their music. In exchange, these music fans are free to DL whatever they like, using whatever softwear works best for them. The more file shareing, the more money goes to artists. The more file-sharing, the larger and deeper the music catalogue.

Eccles!! This time you have gone too far

This seems a much more reasonable solution to the P2P issue than file sharers being pursued through the courts and treated like major criminals.

But I can`t see many people being willing to pay for what they have had free for so long

[Dave C]

Originally Posted by Starcat

So the phone call you received, Dave, could have been genuine but it seems a strange way for a legitimate organisation to conduct it`s business - by cold calling and demanding payments

They might not have been demanding payment, but they were certainly trying to put the frighteners on us. If it was a legitimate organisation, I am surprised that they did not send me any info; maybe they just realised I was never going to pay anything and so just could not be bothered,
Cheers,
Dave C

[Dave C]

Originally Posted by squash54

The money collected gets divided among the artists based on the popularity of their music.

This would be a very unfair way of doing it as I rarely listen to 'popular music' (unless you call the likes of The Tallest Man On Earth popular),
Cheers,
Dave C

[squash54]

Originally Posted by Dave C

This would be a very unfair way of doing it as I rarely listen to 'popular music' (unless you call the likes of The Tallest Man On Earth popular),
Cheers,
Dave C

Not quite sure we are on the same wavelength.

What's unfair about dividing up the fees collected between the artists based on comparitive DL numbers (assuming there is a fair and transparent way of gathering these stats).

Also, this is only aimed at getting the p2p problem solved in a fair and equitable way. All the other ways of marketing music (e.g. CD sales) will still be available to those who wish to utilise them.

[squash54]

Originally Posted by Starcat

This seems a much more reasonable solution to the P2P issue than file sharers being pursued through the courts and treated like major criminals.

But I can`t see many people being willing to pay for what they have had free for so long

The RIAA and their ilk are now getting ISP's to block the service of accounts identified as p2p file sharers. If this technique gathers momentum, paying a reasonable monthly fee to be "legit" might not seem such a bad idea.